The Supreme Court of India has once again reiterated its constitutional commitment to fairness and equality in public employment. In a significant ruling in Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., the Court held that selective regularisation of similarly situated daily wage employees within the same establishment amounts to a violation of equity and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The decision is a landmark for thousands of daily wage and ad-hoc workers who continue to serve in government institutions across the country without permanent status, job security, or the benefits that come with regular employment.
Background of the Case
The appellants in this case were five Class-IV employees and one Driver who had been continuously working with the respondent–Commission since 1989–1992. Despite rendering decades of service, their repeated demands for regularisation were turned down by the State. The government justified its refusal on grounds of “financial constraints” and a ban on the creation of new posts.
However, during the same period, other similarly placed daily wage employees were regularised on vacant posts within the same establishment. This selective approach led the appellants to approach the High Court, which unfortunately upheld the State’s decision. Dissatisfied, they moved the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. Justice Vikram Nath, delivering the judgment, made strong observations on the discriminatory nature of the State’s action.
The Court noted that the appellants had been performing perennial duties comparable to those of employees who were regularised. Denying them regularisation while extending the benefit to others was held to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the principles of equality.
The judgment states:
“Selective regularisation in the same establishment, while continuing the appellants on daily wages despite comparable tenure and duties with those regularised, is a clear violation of equity.”
Constitutional Dimensions
The ruling goes beyond a service matter and touches upon the *constitutional role of the State as an employer. The Court emphasised that *as a constitutional employer, the State is bound by higher standards of fairness, transparency, and equality.
The Court made it clear that the government cannot exploit workers by extracting regular work on a daily wage or ad-hoc basis without providing them with sanctioned posts, fair pay, and job security. Such practices, the Court warned, erode not only livelihoods but also the dignity of workers, which is protected under Article 21.
Furthermore, the Court held that Articles 14 and 16 mandate equal treatment in matters of public employment. Once some employees in a category are regularised, others similarly situated cannot be left out arbitrarily.
Directions Issued by the Court
In order to remedy the long-standing injustice, the Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions:
- Immediate Regularisation: The appellants were directed to be regularised with effect from 2002, the date when the High Court had earlier directed a fresh recommendation.
- Supernumerary Posts: Where sanctioned posts are not available, the State and the successor establishment were directed to create supernumerary posts to accommodate the appellants.
- Pay and Service Benefits: The appellants were to be placed on the minimum of the regular pay-scale with protection of last-drawn wages, full back wages, continuity of service, and entitlement to increments.
- Seniority and Promotion: For career progression, the appellants’ service would count from the date of regularisation.
The Court also directed the filing of a sworn affidavit of compliance, ensuring that its directions are implemented in both letter and spirit.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
1. Equity in Employment
This judgment firmly establishes that selective regularisation violates the principle of equity. Employees performing similar work under similar conditions cannot be arbitrarily treated differently.
2. State’s Higher Responsibility
As a constitutional employer, the State has greater obligations than private employers. It must create sanctioned posts for recurring work instead of depending on ad-hoc or daily wage labour.
3. Creation of Supernumerary Posts
The directive to create supernumerary posts is crucial. It ensures that the excuse of “no available posts” cannot be used to deny justice to workers who have spent decades in service.
4. Livelihood and Dignity under Article 21
The Court reaffirmed that the right to livelihood and dignity forms an integral part of Article 21. Exploiting workers under the garb of financial constraints violates this fundamental right.
5. Consistency in Judicial Directions
The Court criticised the delay in implementing earlier judicial directions. It held that delayed compliance is not mere negligence but a conscious denial of rights.
Broader Implications
This ruling is likely to have a far-reaching impact on government departments and public sector undertakings across India. Many institutions continue to employ workers on a daily wage basis for years, often citing financial limitations or administrative restrictions.
By making it clear that selective regularisation is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has strengthened the position of thousands of employees seeking justice. The ruling may also prompt State governments to revisit their policies on regularisation and manpower planning.
Relevant Precedents
The judgment builds upon earlier rulings where the Court emphasised fairness in employment:
- State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006): While the Court had restricted wholesale regularisation, it carved out exceptions for long-serving daily wagers engaged in perennial work.
- State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017): The Court held that temporary employees are entitled to equal pay for equal work if they perform the same duties as regular employees.
The present case harmonises these principles, focusing on non-discrimination among similarly placed workers.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. is a progressive affirmation of the constitutional values of equality, fairness, and dignity. It sends a strong message that the State cannot deny regularisation to some while granting it to others within the same establishment.
By directing immediate regularisation, creation of supernumerary posts, and granting of full service benefits, the Court has sought to transform judicial recognition of rights into tangible outcomes for workers who have long been denied justice.
This decision stands as a reminder that in a constitutional democracy, fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace but obligations under the Constitution.
Also Read
Delhi High Court Launches Mobile App: A Big Step Towards Digital Justice
Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines Immediate Intervention in Punjab Floods PIL
